Deseret News | LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

Reader comments
LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

699 comments | Read story

Standing Firm and Free in Canada | 11:46 p.m. June 24, 2008

to clear point...The Church does feed starving persons, physically and spiritually...that is why these temples are built...for spiritual sustenance...which is just as important if not more so, that physical sustenance. The cure for all that ails mankind is in this Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. As such...it works...on every level.

To Imagine | 11:49 p.m. June 24, 2008

Thanks for excluding women. It says a lot about your ideology.

JScott | 12:00 a.m. June 25, 2008

I'm working on a local ordinance which will require weddings to be public (i.e. an official can attend to make sure that it is legit, or a video will be available for review). What happens when LDS temple marriages are no longer considered legally binding?

Comments continue below

Regurgitated | 12:09 a.m. June 25, 2008

Same old arguments day in and day out. Some who support gay marriage claim those who don't are bigots or religious fanatics. Some who support gay marriage shout tolerance & open-mindedness. Very ironic to read the posts and see which bloggers resort to name calling.

Just because something happens behind closed doors and I'm not present doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. There are numerous criminal acts that could occur between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it doesn't make it ok. If people do illegal drugs behind closed doors and I vote for harder laws against illegal drug users, it doesn't mean I hate drug addicts, it means I want to curb illegal drug use because I believe it's a negative detriment to society. I don't hate soccer players, I just hate soccer. I don't hate CEO's, I just think most are over-paid. I don't hate gay people, I just think the lifestyle is morally wrong. You are free to disagree with me and I won't think you're a bigot or a freak, I just believe you see things different than me. Please allow me the same right to vote for what I feel is best.

Cas Knies | 12:16 a.m. June 25, 2008

I understand why the Church has chosen to support the pro-heterosexual (or anti-gay depending on your point of view) marriage movement. However, in my opinion, this position will eventually find itself to be a loosing proposition because of the equal opportunity protection clause cemented in multiple case law.

This principle of equal protection under the law must be applied without passion or prejudice, regardless whether we "like" or "dislike" the notion of gay couples amongst us desiring to obtain civil marriage licenses. Religious bigotry is not a valid argument for the law of the land to withhold a civil right to those who have chosen a different kind of life style. Religious bigotry is also not conducive to persuade people of the 'rightness' of your cause. To demonize an entire 'class' of people merely because of a different choice of sexual orientation is an outdated and cruel notion of objective reality. It is disappointing that outmoded stone-age myths on gender and sexual orientation are alive and kicking in our religious communities. Indeed, it would be wise to consider the question: "what would Jesus do?"

En Hedu' Anna | 12:53 a.m. June 25, 2008

to SFFC 11:39
Verily. Who asked the children? They do not have rights of decision-making for society's policy. Can you imagine a world where the innocent and uninformed determined law for the rest of us? Get real.

"How to totally complicate a child's life! No one has that right." Then stop getting divorced. How complicated is a child's life who must move out of their neighborhood and family every other weekend or even several times a week to serve the terms of their parents' custody decrees? How complicated for children to have demands placed by parents who have again married and procreated to love half-siblings and step-siblings whom they see sporadically and who now get more of their parent's attention than they do? What about the dinner table that never looks the same as halfs and steps are pulled in and out of the picture on different schedules?

Time for people to stop pointing the finger of who's destroying what and clean up your own family situation. Definitely. Think of the children.

En Hedu' Anna | 1:04 a.m. June 25, 2008

to JScott
Many countries already deal with this issue by requiring all couples to obtain legal status union before whichever religious recognition they pursue. The LDS Church members in such countries yield to the law of the land.

There is a similar situation in which some countries require cremation due to lack of space or hygiene or whatever. After recruiting membership in those nations, the previous "no cremation" policy was adapted and now the LDS Church accepts the option for all their members. My mum chose the cremation with packet placed in the box with her option. Humorously to me, she still chose burial over scattering due to her concerns of who would end up with her atoms in the resurrection were some forest critter to dine on her remains.

Guy Waters | 1:06 a.m. June 25, 2008

The California Supreme Court did not rule that gays were entitled to marry. Their ruling was that same sex couples were to be treated equally as opposite sex couples by the State, in their participation of the official State recognized civil institution currently defined as marriage. The Courtï¿½s ruling stated that it would be less disruptive to current society to allow same sex couples the term MARRIAGE, then to change the name for everyone. However, the Legislature is free to change the name of that civil institution at some future date.

If the proposed amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman is approved in November, it will not invalidate the May 15th decision of the California Supreme Court, as its proponents claim. Instead it will only add the definition of MARRIAGE into the California Constitution as between a MAN and a WOMAN. It will not overrule the Courtï¿½s decision that opposite and same sex couples must be treated equally under civil law. If this amendment is approved, effectively November 5th ALL MARRIAGE will END in California.

The Courtï¿½s decision is about California CIVIL LAW not RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!

Think outside the box for once | 1:40 a.m. June 25, 2008

To the guy who says he is working on a regulation to
require all weddings to be public, and thinks that
would affect LDS weddings in the temple - hey, try
thinking outside the box, use a little imagination.
Such an act of stupidity would have no effect on
temple marriages. The worst case scenario would be
that we might have to go through an additional civil
ceremony outside the temple in order for you gentiles
to consider us legally married. No big deal.

re: Tenderheart, aching | 2:37 a.m. June 25, 2008

"Today some people are claiming that same sex so-called "marriage" is their right and nobody else's business and won't harm others. Just because they can't forsee widespread devastating effects doesn't mean there won't be any."

The onus is on YOU to show that there WILL be "widespread devastating effects" in order to justify denying them something that everyone else in the country enjoys.

re: Standing Firm and Free in Ca | 2:41 a.m. June 25, 2008

"Now it's becoming against the law to be heterosexual...at least that is the goal of these groups."

I don't suppose you'd care to back up this assertion with actual evidence? No? Didn't think so.

Agki | 6:36 a.m. June 25, 2008

"Just because something happens behind closed doors and I'm not present doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. There are numerous criminal acts that could occur between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it doesn't make it ok."

Homosexuality is not illegal and neither are homosexual acts! They are not criminals. You have confounded what you don't like with illegality. And it DOESN'T affect you.

to Imagine 11:10 | 8:30 a.m. June 25, 2008

Methinks John Lennon is rolling over in his grave. Taking a riff on his words and advocating a group you disagree with "disappears." Nothing like cleansing the field to make it just the way you'd like. Imagine. Scary.

debi | 8:56 a.m. June 25, 2008

I am an active member of the church. I have friends and family that are gay and love them. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but love them as I know God loves them. The church must make a stand because it is God's moral law that is being violated. Remember God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

TO debi | 8:56 a.m | 9:23 a.m. June 25, 2008

Debi dear,

If gays were trying to change your church, then you can cry "foul"! They are trying to obtain legitimacy for their unions by claiming that their CIVIL rights are the same as anyone elses. By not allowing them this sanctioned approval, you are stating that your beliefs are more important than their legal claims. That is all it is.

toni | 9:36 a.m. June 25, 2008

Someone in all this talk said that the church hates gay and lesbian people. That is so untrue. We may not approve of their lifestyle, but we are all God's children. And how He must grieve for them. I taught history for many years. The members of the court should have paid attention and not slept through their history classes. Those individuals who shaped this nation understood that you cannot separate (totally) church and state. What is prohibited is forced membership in a state-established church. What has happened to the rule of the majority? At the same time the majority rules, the minority is free to convince others to join them. But the majority still rules until this happend. If I were a voter in California, I would want to know what has happened to my rights as a citizen. It is frightening when a small group--judges--desirous to keep their power--rule against the will of the people. What is needed is exactly what the church is advocating. Step up and speak out for the cause. That's how the minority got the right to marry in California.

re Toni | 9:54 a.m. June 25, 2008

If your church doesn't hate them, why are they so firmly committed to them having no legal rights for themselves and their partners? And don't say civil unions, because this state (with the Church's blessing)made them illegal too with the very hateful Amendment 3.

CA Mormon | 9:58 a.m. June 25, 2008

The church should stay out of the politics of the state of Ca. Mormons should be able to thoughtfully think and pray about this issue and come to their own decision. By reading out a statement over the pulpits of every ward, it becomes doctrine and the member is under condemnation if he/she does not comply. I am sad to once again to be told what to do by my church.

Re: JScott | 10:01 a.m. June 25, 2008

"I'm working on a local ordinance which will require weddings to be public (i.e. an official can attend to make sure that it is legit, or a video will be available for review). What happens when LDS temple marriages are no longer considered legally binding?"

What makes you think they won't be? Temple marriages follow the laws of the land according to how a ceremony should proceed. And even if they weren't legally binding for some reason, the solution's pretty simple. We'd get a civil marriage and then get sealed in the Temple for time and all eternity. God's law is higher than the federal law, no matter what you guys want to proclaim.

Anonymous | 10:29 a.m. June 25, 2008

This move is absolutely stupid.

1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,

3) CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many.

4) The whole country has now seen the Bretheren as intolerant and meddlesome. This gives credence to other efforts they've previously made more circumspectly and denied.

5) This reignites an issue many Mormons are already ambivalent about or just don't feel good about. Many, many Mormons have gay family members and many have holes in their hearts for someone who was hounded into depression and despair and even suicide in the past.

This will come back and haunt the LDS for a generation.

Anonymous | 10:39 a.m. June 25, 2008

If the Mormon Church is going to behave like a political action committee, then they should be regulated like one. That means opening their books to public scrutiny.

Re: Anonymous 10:29 | 10:42 a.m. June 25, 2008

"CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many."

It's called separating the chaff from the wheat, my friend. The LDS church has been predicting for more than a century that in the last days many, including those who were thought to be strong pillars of the church, will fall by the wayside and renounce their religion.

If we don't trust in the Prophet and his counselors and the rest of the Twelve, if we don't follow the counsel of our Heavenly Father, we're not going to make it with our testimonies unscathed.

When a letter from the First Presidency is read over the pulpit, it becomes doctrine. This is now official Church policy. If we choose to ignore it, we will held responsible for our actions someday.

Unfortunately, some will fall away because of this. Some will fall away for other reasons. It's only going to become more difficult to remain faithful from here on out. The scriptures are pretty clear on that. We all have to choose our sides.

Brooke | 10:46 a.m. June 25, 2008

A constitional ammendment is absolutely essential for our state, not to mention our nation. I've been a CA resident for 32 years and I can't think of anything I've felt stronger about supporting with my time and money than legally defining traditional marriage. Our future as a country depends on it. It sickens me that a small group of corrupt judges can overturn a decision that more than 60% of our state approved. Gays and Lesbians need to find their own definition of marriage--because they aren't going to take mine. For 6,000 years we have had the traditional definition of marriage. It's how we continue to exist as a society. The fundamental unit of mankind is a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman will never have offspring and will never allow our society to continue--just as in the fall of Rome. Lifestyles like these I will tolerate--but I will not define as marriage. We should not let a minority define what marriage is and has been for 6,000 years. The LDS Church is involved for the future of mankind and their involvement is essential--as yours should be.

Tejano | 10:46 a.m. June 25, 2008

To Boiseguy and his ilk:

By what reasoning are irreligious people and irreligious organizations the only ones that have a say in how our laws are structured and how our government is run?

I have been under the impression that ALL citizens are allowed to take a stand on what our society's laws condone or condemn.

candace | 11:00 a.m. June 25, 2008

I am a California LDS member. Yes I believe that people have the freedom of choice, and so does the LDS church. And By taking a stand against Gay and Lesbian marriage, doesn't mean that they still don't have a choice. By Limiting our constitution, to define marriage legally recognized as only between a man and a woman, doesn't take away anyones choice. Regardless of the law they will still commit their sin and live thier lives as they see fit. This law doesn't take away choice.

I also do not hate gay people, but I do not condone thier choices, jsut like I don't condone choices of child molesters or adulters. I will support the church on this matter, and every other matter they bring to me. They are not "forcing" my vote as some members feel they are, they are asking us to stand up for something we claim we believe in, and as a member they shouldn't even have to ask you, or encourage you to stand up for all things good and right.

For any of those who doubt the words of the prophets, get down on your knees and ask God for his will.

Saddened | 11:09 a.m. June 25, 2008

While I think the LDS church is entitled to take a stand on political and social issues, as member I resent being told how to vote. It contradicts what I've been told my entire life about using my conscience. It saddens me that the church increasingly attempts to dominate its members in every facet of their lives. There is much good in the LDS church; I can never deny that. Regardless of where I stand on the gay marriage issue, what upsets me the most is the way the church is handling this. They have issued a Proclamation to the Family, yet don't seem to trust that their members will vote accordingly. I suspect this will result in some members, including me, questioning the nature of the church they belong to and what its doctrines really are. Call me chaff if you must, but I can no longer, in good conscience, remain an active member.

To Saddened @11:09 | 11:28 a.m. June 25, 2008

I too, am saddened at the recent stands the Church has chosen. When an organization labels all "gays, feminists, and intellectuals" as "enemies of the Church" then who else is left to support it?

I guess just the "straight, traditional, non-thinkers". I'm afraid the Church is losing many of it's best and brightest because of this attitude.

Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. June 25, 2008

Since when do we have the right to vote on someone elses civil liberties? When did that happen?

What has happened to the constitution?

What are you doing to this country?

altec90210 | 11:50 a.m. June 25, 2008

Let me start off by saying I am LDS. Knowing this, let me say that I support the church's decision to encourage California members to "do all you can" to support a state constitutional amendment to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.

Can't anyone see how moral and civil standards are eroding in the United States? Let's NOT loose sight of the fact that this is a nation where we have unsurpassed individual rights, yet that does NOT mean the every group has a right to do whatever they want whenever they want. If certain individuals want same sex marriage, they are welcome to move to a country that allows it.

I do NOT believe that same sex marriage is moral. While I have a niece that has adopted this lifestyle and is raising a family, I do not feel it is appropriate.

It is clear that we as a nation are losing sight on the fact that the founding members of this country, while wanting to keep church and state separate, were Christian standard individuals, this is what the LDS church is suggesting we do, let our moral conscience be known to all in our vote.

Sarah | 11:53 a.m. June 25, 2008

I don't recall any statements from the First Presidency saying that all gays, feminists, and intellectuals were enemies of the church. Please stop putting your biases against the church forward as church doctrine.

to altec90210 | 12:02 p.m. June 25, 2008

"Can't anyone see how moral and civil standards are eroding in the United States?"

What I see is that a very vocal minority are becoming more and more dictatorial and that people who resent that are becoming more and more rebellious as the push down becomes unbearable.

This didn't start out a nation of busybodies. People were free to be individuals. People who were different saw other possibilities and opened the West, invented technologies and produced the Arts. Even the most egregious "outlaws" were celebrated as cultural icons whose legends survive to this day. One such freethinker got a vision and revelation and restored the gospel. He said.

That's when the country was great. Now it's dominated by small minds that want conformity and produce mediocrity.

You, sir, are the real problem.

Just one question...WHY? | 12:09 p.m. June 25, 2008

Does the Church even have a clue how many people they are alienating? Members seem to be abandoning the Church in droves. I've seen it in my own family, and it's splitting us apart. People are being forced to choose between Church and family. Is this really what the Church wants to do?

Anonymous | 12:13 p.m. June 25, 2008

Beyond the varying definitions here of what is or is not moral (here homosexual behavior), it seems that even the posters' sense of morality's essence varies. Many here express views that no behavior is immoral (as long as it is a ï¿½victimlessï¿½ crime). We may perhaps not like something but hesitate to define it as wrong, because maybe it is right for someone else. Maybe, freedom itself is our sense of right and wrong. Other people can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't bother me. Have we lost the notion that there is an absolute right and wrong out there? And I don't claim that God rigidly controls what we do just for His own personal pleasure. He teaches us what is right, and what is right is what makes us happier, healthier and more capable. As to my opinion, can we really claim that we know all the ramifications, personal and societal, of gay marriage? Unless we're pretty omniscient ourselves, reading others' minds, we can't. But God can, and maybe He's lovingly telling us that it is wrong, and not just because He doesn't like it, but because it will affect us negatively.

Str8 saint in the Golden State | 12:15 p.m. June 25, 2008

I've got a rainbow ribbon to wear on Sunday and I'm prepared to walk out of sacrament meeting when the letter is read. I'm also prepared to work against the proposed amendment between now and Nov. 3.

To Sarah @11:53 | 12:21 p.m. June 25, 2008

I'm sorry. But how do we know what Church doctrine is anymore? Is this current "request" from the First Presidency really "doctrine"? Or is it just the "opinion of men"?

I'm truly confused. Things I've been told were doctrine, I'm later told were not. I believe it was Boyd K. Packer, a current apostle, who made the statement that "gays, feminists and so-called intellectuals are the greatest enemies of the Church." But I know it's possible that this is not really "doctrine" just some quote from an apostle.

Whatever it is (doctrine or not), it still seems terribly mean-spirited and unbecoming of the Church I once loved.

Sodomy, Sin & Morality | 12:20 p.m. June 25, 2008

Ezekiel 16: 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Anonymous | 12:20 p.m. June 25, 2008

"that the founding members of this country...were Christian standard individuals"

On the contrary, Our founding fathers were a mixture of deist and christians. Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and George Washington were deists. All of the aforementioned names wrote in books and letters they authored an utter DISBELIEF in the bible as the word of God, they all also stated on numerous occasions their disbelief in the deity of Jesus Christ, and the trinity.

Thomas Paine even wrote a lengthy book called "The age of reason" to disprove the bible and christianity.

Ben Franklin could even be called an atheist.

John | 12:22 p.m. June 25, 2008

On heterosexual marriage, briefly: Just because there is a history of infidelity, abuse and divorce in marriage, does not make it wrong or unworthy of protection. It means that people casually enter into it unprepared, do not cherish their spouses as they should or regard those sacred bonds as temporary. That reflects on certain participants, not the institution. Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal way for them to learn love and to grow, and to raise children in that love. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has that view (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World) and, to its credit, fights the premarital sex (have you attended high school or college recently and seen its extent?) and infidelity that lead to single parenthood and broken homes. Do we have enough sociological evidence now to denounce premarital sex? Unfortunately, too often, we don't have the courage. The Church has the right to defend marriage because of the community and moral impact (See the statement on political neutrality on the Church's website, under Newsroom and then Public Issues.)

to -toaltec90210 | 12:22 p.m. June 25, 2008

Funny how just a few years ago gay marriages were not even on the radar because of public outcry. Funny how all the amendments to have marriage between a man and a woman be the only legal arrangement under the state laws were instigated by Christian and non-christian groups. Funny how history is NOT on the side of Gay relationships in societies of the past (that no longer exist) Your policies and lifestyles of gay marriage are the REAL problem and have been all along historically. Oh, I forgot most gay activist ignore history, distort history and just blatantly lie and name call. Well , what is new?

Tejano | 12:23 p.m. June 25, 2008

I agree that there is a vocal minority that is becoming more and more dictatorial. There is a group pushing society into "conformity" with their beliefs. It is that group pushing the homosexual agenda.

It's coming, anyway... | 12:33 p.m. June 25, 2008

Society is evolving, and our attitudes are changing. Mixed-race marriages are now accepted, even by the Church. Blacks have been given the Priesthood. Most younger people are okay with same-sex marriage.

The Church may succeed in stopping gay marriage in California, by pouring their time and money into it, this time. But eventually, other states will adopt it.

I'm no prophet, but it seems like this is just a matter of time, and it seems sad to see so many people wasting their precious time and energy fighting the inevitable where there is so much else that needs to be done.

John | 12:35 p.m. June 25, 2008

Thanks "To AWB." In the Church's view and in my own, a child is a stewardship, to be raised on behalf of God. For that reason, I reject the notion that it is always a woman's right to have an abortion (though I stand with the Church that, under certain circumstances, it is a personal question). For that reason, the Church is not so much assaulting the freedoms of those who would enter into gay marriage, as defending the rights of the unborn children, who would be adopted or artificially inseminated into a family contrary to the laws of God. The Church has an interest in the happiness of all humankind, including those not yet born. Do the proponents of gay marriage have more of a right to decide those people's futures than the Church has?

Stand a Little Taller | 12:41 p.m. June 25, 2008

I think we all need to Stand a Little Taller, and have the courage to stand up for what we believe. The Church has every right to encourage its members to stand up for what our Heavenly Father has set as the standard for ALL of His children: marriage between a man and a woman. While others have their freedom to choose whether they want to obey their Heavenly Father or not, so do those members of the LDS Church have their freedom to choose to obey the laws which Heavenly Father has set for the happiness and blessing of all of His children. He did not have Adam choosing to be "married" to another man or to a woman, Eve. He gave Eve to Adam, and that is the way He still wants it to be.

Palm Springs LDS | 12:46 p.m. June 25, 2008

I believe marriage is ordained by God and only between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that marriage between same sex couples is their right as free agents. So...We may choose life or we may choose death. The choice is ours.

To Sodomy, Sin & Morality | 12:47 p.m. June 25, 2008

I think the scripture that you shared deserves to be repeated:
Ezekiel 16: 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Who does this remind us of? And why are we wasting time and money on laws against those with a different orientation than us when we could be helping "the poor and the needy"? (Remember, once you've spent that time and money for one thing, it can't be used for something else.)

to Stand a Little Taller | 1:08 p.m. June 25, 2008

When God gave Eve to Adam did he already have in mind a point in time when incest would be wrong? When do you suppose that was because there must have been an awful lot of it for many, many generations.

When do you suppose the first "unvaliant" spirit children were born to them or their descendants? When do you suppose the unvaliant spirits with the dark skin started being born in only families who were also dark-skinned? And only being born in certain areas around the Equator?

There's a lot I still don't understand.

To John | 1:07 p.m. June 25, 2008

"as defending the rights of the unborn children, who would be adopted or artificially inseminated into a family contrary to the laws of God."

Sorry, those gay couples that want children are having children NOW. They are not waiting for permission. This amendment will not stop them from having or adopting and actually hurts those children by not giving them more stability in their homes.

Try again.

Consider this | 1:10 p.m. June 25, 2008

The First Presidency's letter is not going to conclude anything.

1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,

3) CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many.

4) Younger voters will only get MORE tolerant to same sex marriages.

5) The whole country has now seen the Bretheren as intolerant and meddlesome. This gives credence to other efforts they've previously made more circumspectly and denied.

6) This reignites an issue many Mormons are already ambivalent about or just don't feel good about. Many, many Mormons have gay family members and many have holes in their hearts for someone who was hounded into depression and despair and even suicide in the past.

This will come back and haunt the LDS for a generation or more.

Jenny | 1:13 p.m. June 25, 2008

If the agenda were just for equal rights, the promoters of gay marriage would be happy for civil unions where there would be legal rights for all that they seem to care about....which when insurance benefits, employment benefits, inheritance benefits etc. add up....all equal money.
This is more an attempt to mock God who ordained marriage and redefine marriage to a point that it is no longer recognizable as a protection and blessing to women and children in this society. Family law will take a beating in an even greater way, and it is the children who will suffer most. To those who are angry at people of faith who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage in our society, may I say, that we defend your right to believe and speak your mind and morals, but we do not stand idly by when a group or movement seeks to destroy our society. We do have a right and obligation to speak up also. Perhaps you can see the fairness in that. If not, it explains the motives even more clearly to take away the rights of the moral majority.

Sarah | 1:15 p.m. June 25, 2008

To commentator at 12:21,

When the First Presidency issues a letter to us in sacrament meeting, when they post the message each month in the Ensign, when they speak to us at General Conference, and when they issue proclamations and pamphlets to the youth, to the members at large, and to the world, that becomes doctrine.

When it does not come from the First Presidency or solely from the Prophet himself, whether it's from an Apostle or one of the counselors or a member of whatever local authority he is a part of, it's considered an opinion. It may be an highly informed opinion, and it may be a direct personal revelation, but unless it comes from the Prophet, it's not official church-sanctioned doctrine.

Many statements that are personal opinion are passed on as doctrine by the members, but that isn't always the case. Usually, they're just pearls of wisdom that are often quoted and requoted until people are unsure whether it's official doctrine or not. By all means, research anything that sounds questionable to you, unless you hear it straight from the First Presidency.

They will NOT lead the church astray, whether they have universal approval or not.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.